Context:

A federal judge ruled that disputed ballots in the 2024 North Carolina Supreme Court race must be included in the final count, favoring Democratic incumbent Allison Riggs over Republican challenger Jefferson Griffin. Judge Richard Myers stated that removing ballots six months after Election Day would violate voters' due process and equal protection rights, and he ordered the State Board of Elections to certify the results showing Riggs as the winner by 734 votes. Myers delayed the implementation of his decision for seven days to allow Griffin the opportunity to appeal. Griffin's efforts to exclude ballots were seen as an attempt to alter the election outcome retroactively, a move criticized by Democrats and voting rights groups as undermining democratic principles. The ruling underscored the importance of maintaining established election rules to prevent confusion and preserve public confidence in the electoral process.

Dive Deeper:

• Federal Judge Richard Myers ruled that disputed ballots in North Carolina's 2024 Supreme Court race must remain in the count, citing constitutional rights concerns if they were removed post-election.

• The decision favored Democratic incumbent Allison Riggs, who was shown to have won by 734 votes after two recounts, over her Republican challenger Jefferson Griffin.

• Judge Myers emphasized that altering election rules after the fact would violate due process and equal protection rights, and ordered the State Board of Elections to certify the results based on the final tally.

• Griffin's legal challenges, which included appeals to remove ballots he deemed ineligible, were seen as attempts to change the election outcome retrospectively, prompting criticism from Democrats and voting rights advocates.

• Myers delayed his ruling for a week to allow Griffin to consider an appeal, while stressing the importance of maintaining consistent election rules to avoid confusion and uphold public trust.

• Griffin's efforts involved challenges over photo ID requirements, primarily targeting six Democratic-leaning counties, which was viewed as a selective and retroactive disenfranchisement attempt.

• The ruling highlighted concerns from Democrats and voting rights groups about potential threats to democracy and the precedent such challenges could set for future elections.